On December 30, Garrett's attorney called David with a settlement proposal. Mountain Vista would accept removal of the cabins and offer $1.5 million rather than the $2.5 million awarded by the court, provided I would agree to restore the lake after the work was completed. The offer relied heavily on the association's financial distress and the threat of an appeal that could consume years. David brought it to me as he was obligated to do, though he looked almost embarrassed while describing the numbers.
I asked how the association planned to pay for removal while also paying damages and refunding investors. David said they were trying to structure the obligations through asset sales, financing, creditor arrangements, and a supervised restoration contract. No source of money had yet been proven. Then he said something I had not expected. "If you simply refuse and they can't perform, James, you could spend another two years holding a judgment against an empty balance sheet while a hundred and nine buildings deteriorate on your property."
That was a real risk. The court had ordered removal, but a court order was not a crew with excavators. Contractors needed to be paid, environmental rules followed, utilities disconnected, and debris hauled away. I could hire the work myself and seek reimbursement, but the scale was immense and the financing uncertain. There was little satisfaction in winning an argument if the land remained littered with abandoned structures for years afterward.
I told David to counter at $3 million, with full removal, verified restoration, independent environmental inspection, and a clear schedule for restoring the lake once the conditions were met. He raised an eyebrow because the number exceeded the court's damages award. I explained that I was not asking for an arbitrary bonus simply to humiliate Garrett; the final settlement would have to cover additional compromises, restoration monitoring, legal expense, and the release of other disputed claims. If the association wanted an enforceable final resolution instead of more litigation, it needed to fund one.
David spent the next three days negotiating security for the work rather than simply debating the dollar figure. The final arrangement depended on a combination of escrowed funds, financing approved through the restructuring process, proceeds from designated association assets, and obligations supported by additional guarantees. No one was pretending the bankrupt HOA had three million dollars sitting untouched in a savings account. The settlement would need court approval and performance safeguards. I refused to sign until David could show me the documents establishing how each obligation would be met.
Garrett was no longer the association president, but his lawyer remained involved because the negotiations touched claims concerning the development's management and his personal exposure. I heard that he considered the counteroffer outrageous. I found it difficult to care. He had threatened to spend years making sure I could not reclaim my shoreline. Now I was making sure that whatever settlement we signed would actually get the concrete and lumber off my land.